On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Josh Smift <[email protected]> wrote:
> DB> Except, of course, that's what evil nasty megacorp Verizon is
> DB> (essentially) suggesting, and we hates the corporations, yes, precious :-)
>
> This is needlessly snarky. You don't need to imply that the people who
> disagree with you are Gollum, or have other various irrational hatreds and
> fears -- just disagree with them. (Is my two cents anyway.)
No, I think it's a key point to the debate actually.
I think if this weren't a "giant-ass evil megacorp", a telco megacorp no less
who we societally ingrained to hate ("We don't care, we don't have to, we're
the phone company" predates this debate by 40 years or so), it would be much
harder for Netflix to paint themselves as the victims, as opposed to the ones
who are flooding the shared pipe and refusing to pay their "fair share" of the
burden.
> These two together seem to get to the big question: What incentives to
> various ISPs have to peer with each other in friendly ways? Why shouldn't
> they fragment apart and compete for customers in non-interoperable ways?
Verizon *is* peering with L3 in a friendly way, they're simply saying "man, one
of your downstream customers is consuming a crapton of bandwidth and we're
throttling them so the rest of the traffic from you isn't impacted. And no,
we're not inclined to upgrade just to satisfy that one customer, because that
customer is - in part - hell-bent on attacking our other revenue streams."
And that -- to me anyway -- is a completely legitimate position for Verizon to
take.
D
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
